Misplaced Pages

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MjolnirPants (talk | contribs) at 14:58, 3 January 2025 (→Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2025). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conspiracy theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Paul Krugman (8 May 2006). "Who's crazy now?". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 27 August 2019. A conspiracy theory, says Misplaced Pages, 'attempts to explain the cause of an event as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance.' Sean Illing (11 April 2019). "The Trump-Ukraine story shows the power of conspiracy theories: This book explains why conspiracism is on the rise in American politics". Vox.com. Archived from the original on 1 October 2019. Retrieved 1 October 2019. Nancy Rosenblum: That's right, and I'm so glad you said that, because Misplaced Pages actually defines a conspiracy theory as a false threat of a conspiracy, and that's not true.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Knuteson (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (special:diff/927825243)

This article was selected as the article for improvement on 9 September 2013 for a period of one week.

Section sizes Section size for Conspiracy theory (39 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 21,564 21,564 Origin and usage 6,967 9,694 Alleged CIA origins 2,727 2,727 Difference from conspiracy 4,462 4,462 Examples 1,179 1,179 Popularity 8,687 8,687 Types 1,105 4,110 Walker's five kinds 929 929 Barkun's three types 1,279 1,279 Rothbard: shallow vs. deep 797 797 Lack of evidence 6,695 6,695 Rhetoric 6,097 6,097 Consequences 8,645 8,645 Interventions 73 22,761 Target audience 2,002 7,617 General public 2,426 2,426 Conspiracy theorists 3,189 3,189 Reducing transmission 1,790 1,790 Government policies 4,616 4,616 Public health campaigns 4,483 4,483 Backfire effects 4,182 4,182 Psychology 8,865 27,727 Attractions 10,119 10,119 Causes 4,668 8,743 Projection 2,214 2,214 Physiology 1,861 1,861 Sociology 3,386 6,042 Influence of critical theory 1,131 1,131 Fusion paranoia 1,525 1,525 Viability 4,103 4,103 Terminology 1,908 1,908 Politics 3,410 18,929 Arab world 2,973 2,973 Turkey 4,571 4,571 United States 7,975 7,975 See also 853 853 References 84 84 Further reading 7,606 7,606 External links 542 542 Total 161,688 161,688

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q:Are conspiracy theories inherently false? A:A key feature of conspiracy theories is that they are unfalsifiable, in the sense that they rely on circular reasoning and thus resist any attempt to assess their veracity. At best one can say that conspiracy theories are, by definition, not even wrong. This kind of hair-splitting misses the point, however. Conspiracy theories are not descriptions of real events. If they were, they would be called conspiracies.

Wiki education assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 27 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DET313205 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Emjo2000, Samath1a, SethBruder, MCaro99, Amonroyr, Pmmuab77.

Edit request

"A conspiracy theory is distinct from a conspiracy; it refers to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics..." This should say "it is", "not it refers to". A conspiracy does not "refer" to a conspiracy; it is one. Or at least it needs some kind of rephrasing. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:B179:C8D1:FF57:859 (talk) 10:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Disagree, it makes sense. Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

A conspiracy does not "refer" to a conspiracy; it is one. But a conspiracy theory refers to a conspiracy. And that is what the sentence says. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Add A Fact: "Scientific literacy combats conspiracy theories"

I found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below

Brief scientific literacy interventions, especially those that focus on critical thinking skills, may help to undermine conspiracy beliefs and behaviors before the conspiracy theories have a chance to take root, according to a team led by Penn State researchers.

The fact comes from the following source:

https://spotlightmagazine.ca/2024/12/02/brief-scientific-literacy-interventions-may-quash-new-conspiracy-theories/

Here is a wikitext snippet to use as a reference:

 {{Cite web |title=Brief scientific literacy interventions may quash new conspiracy theories |url=https://spotlightmagazine.ca/2024/12/02/brief-scientific-literacy-interventions-may-quash-new-conspiracy-theories/ |website=Spotlight Magazine |date=2024-12-02 |access-date=2024-12-02 |language=en-US |first= |last=Phys.org |quote=Brief scientific literacy interventions, especially those that focus on critical thinking skills, may help to undermine conspiracy beliefs and behaviors before the conspiracy theories have a chance to take root, according to a team led by Penn State researchers.}} 

This post was generated using the Add A Fact browser extension.

Oceanflynn (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

"Conspiracism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Conspiracism to this article has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 8 § Conspiracism until a consensus is reached. 67.209.128.24 (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change The resulting anti-vaccine movement has been promoted by a number of prominent persons including Rob Schneider, Jim Carrey and former US President Donald Trump, to The resulting anti-vaccine movement has been promoted by a number of prominent persons including Rob Schneider, Jim Carrey, former US President Donald Trump, and Robert F. Kennedy, selected by Donald Trump to lead the US Department of Health and Human Services. Hanzee1 (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

It needs sourcing (which exists in spades at Robert F. Kennedy Jr.), but I think it's very WP:DUE to include the fact that the incoming head of the DHS is among those promoting anti-vaccine beliefs, and he's certainly a prominent figure. I'm gonna do it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done, though the proposed change was not to this article, but to List of conspiracy theories. See . ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• B-Class level-4 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in History
• B-Class vital articles in History
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• Top-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Articles with connected contributors
• Misplaced Pages former articles for improvement